Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 20, 2014, 01:45:48 AM
539610 Posts in 40876 Topics by 5157 Members
Latest Member: AttackDonut
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  POLITICAL THREAD (PF) ENTER AT YOUR RISK « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Author Topic: POLITICAL THREAD (PF) ENTER AT YOUR RISK  (Read 2604 times)
Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1823
Posts: 14742


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« Reply #45 on: April 13, 2011, 07:18:38 PM »


Fair enough. I stand corrected on a rational explanation. I guess one can be made. However, the 1st Amendment, like most amendments, goes beyond the literal text of the Bill of Rights. If you research the 1st Amendment, it is widely interpreted to include laws and policies that favor one religion over another, and so, to amend my original statement, I defy anybody to rationally explain how this is NOT advocating a policy favoring one religion over another.

Also, he made it clear that the "God's Will" reason was the most important. The rest are just questionable motives used to escape having to admit that our support is primarily based on Biblical scripture. Take away the Biblical significance and Israel just becomes another piece of ground.

I understand you're not arguing my position, you're simply keeping it to Constitutional technicalities, in which case you have a point.

Maybe I should research the First Amendment.  You do know that I'm a lawyer, right?  Wink 

That the 1st Amendment is "widely interpreted to include laws and policies that favor one religion over another" is an oversimplification as well as an unworkable test.  Laws prohibiting human sacrifice favor other religions over Satanism; laws prohibiting use of peyote favor other religions over Native American religions.  Secular and religious purposes overlap so often that you could not reasonably invalidate all legislation that could be traced to having a religious motivation.  The actual historical legal test used in Establishment clause cases (last I heard) is the Lemon Test, which approves a statute as constitutional if

1. the statute has a secular legislative purpose,
2. its principle primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and
3. it does not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

A statute that had a religious purpose alongside a secular purpose, incidentally advanced or inhibited religion, and fostered a minimal government entanglement with religion would technically pass this test.

If you could hypothetically gain standing to challenge aid to Israel as violating your rights to be free from government establishment of religion (which you couldn't, because giving aid to Israel doesn't establish any state religion or effect your freedom to practice your chosen religion), then I think the foreign aid statute would clearly be ruled constitutional under this test.  Your only argument to the contrary so far is that a single legislator used a religious motivation as an argument to favor the bill, but clearly even he offered enough secular justifications to pass the test (even though you may think he's wrong or being disingenuous---the purpose doesn't have to be wise, only secular).

Sorry, but when people offer legal interpretations I feel like a doctor watching non-MDs dish out medical advice; I can't stay quiet. 
Logged

"The best parts are watching Sly go through the full range of emotions: deadpan, deadpan with raised eyebrow, deadpan with quivering lip. There's also a great sequence where Sly drives his VW Beetle down the interstate for about 20 minutes, staring dramatically through the windshield.."-Joe Bob on A MAN CALLED RAMBO
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 1427
Posts: 8394


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #46 on: April 13, 2011, 10:03:20 PM »

This thread has wound all over the place, and the reactions to my commentary are a couple of pages back now.  So let me see if I can respond to people's satisfaction.  I'll be up front - it's been a VERY long day and I am exhausted.  So if I lapse into incoherence, please be charitable!

FIRST - I'll address Flick's comments regarding U.S. support for Israel.

  For me personally, yes, my religious beliefs about Israel do tend to make me lend support to it. However,  I do feel that U.S. support for Israel is and should be based on non-religious motivations.
FIRST OF ALL - there is one and only one historic homeland of Judaism, and that is Israel.  They occupied that region 2000 years before Muhammad was even born.  The Jews have been one of the most persecuted religious minorities in the history of the world, and they had been promised as far back as 1912 in the Balfour Declaration the right to return to their homeland and establish a nation state there. After the Holocaust, it became apparent that Europe would  never be a permanent home to the Jewish people.  It was time for them to be allowed to return to the home they had been longing to return to since 70 AD.
  Historically speaking, there has NEVER been an Arabic Muslim state of Palestine.  It never existed before 1948.  It was just a strip of territory inhabited by nomadic Arab peoples, and controlled by the Ottoman Empire.  And the Dome of the Rock was NOT the "Second most important shrine" in Islam until it was declared such AFTER Israel's 1948 rebirth.  Until then it was just another minor shrine, but nowhere nearly as important  as other sites in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
  Now - someone said, if that's the case, why not give ALL the U.S. back to the Native Americans?  Well, that's an apples-to-oranges comparison.  We did not give the entire Middle East to Israel.  Arabic Muslims still control over 95% of the lands in the Middle East.  We gave Israel a tiny wedge of land on the coastline, including their most important and holy city, Jerusalem.  Basically, in relation to the rest of the Middle East, we gave them a postage stamp in the midst of a football field.  As shamefully as we treated the Native Americans here in the U.S., we gave them way more land than that.  There are Indian Reservations that are bigger than the entire state of Israel!
  Beyond all that - which is it more in America's interest, as the world's oldest democratic republic, to support?  A group of brutally theocratic dictatorships that are against virtually every principle that Western Civilization is built on, or a progressive, Democratic state that has produced more Nobel Prize winners per capita than any nation on earth?  An island of progressivism in a sea of barbarity?  Should we throw a faithful ally and loyal friend under the bus for the sake of people who hate us, and will continue to hate us even if we abandon Israel to their not-so-tender mercies tomorrow?  If America is serious about our founding principles of democracy, equality, and freedom, we have a moral duty to stand up for the only nation in the Middle East that shares those principles.

  Now, as to my thoughts on Islam from the earlier post - again, I'll be absolutely honest.  I believe  Islam is a barbaric religion.  I don't care much for Bill Maher, but he nailed it the other night when he commented that "Islam is the only religion in the world today that REGULARLY kills those who oppose it."  If Muslims actually follow the teachings of the Quran and the example of their prophet Muhammad, then they are going to be on a never-ending jihad to convert or kill the infidels of the world.  Muhammad was a man of the sword who spent his life forcing others to bow to his religious vision or be killed.  He made peaceful overtures to both Jews and Christians at first, but when they refused to acknowledge that he was a prophet of God, he declared war on both and drove them out of Arabia. 
Now, that being said, while Islam is manifestly NOT the "religion of peace" it claims to be, the vast majority of the world's Muslims are peaceful people who simply want to be left alone.  I've said that many times.  But the Jihadists are a growing and deadly element among them, and every American retreat or defeat empowers them and lends them credibility.
  There are reformers among Islam who truly believe in and practice peace and tolerance.  But they are a minority.  If America is to save what is left of Western Civilization - and I truly believe it is WORTH saving - we HAVE to back up and encourage this element of Islam.  They are not a majority, but their influence can transform Islam into a religion that can coexist with the West and renounce jihad.  However, if the jihadists succeed in driving America out of the Middle East forever, and then destroy Israel, the voices for reform and coexistence will be drowned out forever in the rising tide of jihad and Islamism, and those seeking to establish a global caliphate will be permanently in the driver's seat.  And Western civilization will end, not with a bang, but an "Allah Akbar!"

  There was one other comment somewhere, maybe in another thread - there's about three different ones going right now - that stated every religion has as its basic tenet the conversion or destruction of all those who do not embrace its tenets.  That kind of moral equivalency game is inherently false.
There is NOTHING, ever, in the New Testament that advocates violence by the followers of Jesus. They are simply instructed to preach and persuade, to love those that hate them, and pray for those that persecute them.  That being said, the church has, at many points in its history, done a TOTALLY lousy job of following those teachings.  But they are the central tenets of Christianity nonetheless. And, to be fair, I don't think either Buddhism or Hinduism mandate war on those who refuse to embrace their teachings. I know Wiccans don't.   Jihad is a largely Islamic phenomena.  To paint all religions with the brush of its violent intolerance is to do them an injustice.

  Lester - again, you say I'm out of the line of fire.  I'm not.  There have been two foiled attacks within an hour of me, and Fort Hood isn't that far off.  And your dreary insistence on showing pictures of lovely, cutely dressed young Muslim women is frankly boring. I can show you plenty of photos of sweetly dressed young frauleins from Germany in the 1930's, but that does not prove that Nazi Germany was a peaceful, benevolent state.  And yes, the rich oil states can afford to build some very pretty infrastructure for their elites.  But see how the average  citizen away from the great cities lives, and you will see the squalor of the Muslim world at its worst.
Logged

"Carpe diem!" - Seize the day!  "Carpe per diem!" - Seize the daily living allowance! "Carpe carp!" - Seize the fish!
"Carpe Ngo Diem!" - Seize the South Vietnamese Dictator!
Mofo Rising
Global Moderator
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 439
Posts: 3152


My cat can eat a whole watermelon!


WWW
« Reply #47 on: April 14, 2011, 02:27:25 AM »

I don't think that America's interest in the Middle East has anything to do with religion.

We have very clear interests in the region because we have very clear interest in petroleum. As sad as it seems, economic interests trump everything. Sure, for the most part we are a Judeo-Christian nation and we're interested in keeping that up, it's the basis of most of our laws. (Have more than one wife?) But the real reason we are involved in the Middle East is because they are sitting on a fat deposit of oil, which America joneses for more than anything else on the planet.

But that source is drying up. Once we find a viable source of alternate energy (and I think if there's one thing you should spend your life trying for, that is it), we will drop the whole Middle East controversy as soon as possible. Sheiks, holy ground, once the oil money well no longer matters our interest will wane. All the high-minded rhetoric will disappear.

Personal aside, please don't compare the land rewarding of Israel to the reservations of land "given" to American Indians. America is a big land, but would you like to live in the areas the government "gifted" to Native Americans?

"Jihad is a largely Islamic phenomena.  To paint all religions with the brush of its violent intolerance is to do them an injustice."

I disagree with that point. Christianity has always found itself very amenable to violence, despite what Jesus taught.
Logged

Every dead body that is not exterminated becomes one of them. It gets up and kills. The people it kills, get up and kill.
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 1427
Posts: 8394


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #48 on: April 14, 2011, 06:47:56 AM »

The church has been violent, which I freely acknowledged.
But the doctrines of Christianity, as outlined by Christ and his disciples in the New Testament, do NOT condone violence and never have.
Which is why the medieval church bent over backward to ignore them - so it could cater to the bloodthirsty nature of the times, and play power politics as well as any king.

It was shameful, and it was not Christian, even if it was the church doing it.
Logged

"Carpe diem!" - Seize the day!  "Carpe per diem!" - Seize the daily living allowance! "Carpe carp!" - Seize the fish!
"Carpe Ngo Diem!" - Seize the South Vietnamese Dictator!
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 487
Posts: 4645


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #49 on: April 14, 2011, 09:48:09 AM »

Quote
Now - someone said, if that's the case, why not give ALL the U.S. back to the Native Americans?  Well, that's an apples-to-oranges comparison.  We did not give the entire Middle East to Israel.  Arabic Muslims still control over 95% of the lands in the Middle East.  We gave Israel a tiny wedge of land on the coastline, including their most important and holy city, Jerusalem.  Basically, in relation to the rest of the Middle East, we gave them a postage stamp in the midst of a football field.  As shamefully as we treated the Native Americans here in the U.S., we gave them way more land than that.  There are Indian Reservations that are bigger than the entire state of Israel!

The same justification that the Jews have historical claim to Israel is the exact same justification that the native Americans have historical claim to the Americas. It's about as rudimentary and direct a comparison as you can get. No apples to oranges at all. What you're offering is a rationalization.

Quote
Beyond all that - which is it more in America's interest, as the world's oldest democratic republic, to support?  A group of brutally theocratic dictatorships that are against virtually every principle that Western Civilization is built on, or a progressive, Democratic state that has produced more Nobel Prize winners per capita than any nation on earth?  An island of progressivism in a sea of barbarity?  Should we throw a faithful ally and loyal friend under the bus for the sake of people who hate us, and will continue to hate us even if we abandon Israel to their not-so-tender mercies tomorrow?  If America is serious about our founding principles of democracy, equality, and freedom, we have a moral duty to stand up for the only nation in the Middle East that shares those principles

When did I ever advocate doing anything for the sake of the middle east? In fact, I'm saying just the opposite. In this ridiculous polarized debate, it's the same old rhetoric by both sides. People in support will do everything they can to paint Israel as a nation of saints and martyrs, as guiltless and democratic and fair as the day is long, as well as, of course, demonize Muslims. People opposed will paint the exact opposite. It makes me sick. I really don't care any more for Israel than I do for China or Africa or Australia or England, nor should we. And yes, you can bet I'm an "America firster." You can rationalize to your hearts content about how important it is to support Israel and speculate what will happen if we don't. I'm sure you will equally deny that this lavished support is and has always been grossly preferential (for religious reasons primarily in my opinion), and at the very least a significant factor in attracting aggression. That has nothing to do with doing anything for the sake of those barbaric Muslims. I would much rather the middle east go f**k themselves than to have us do the f**king. But by this point we're a little too deeply embroiled, aren't we? And now that the same blowback that happened during and after Vietnam is happening with Muslims, the great propaganda machine calls it "Islamization." I don't like it any more than you do, Indy, but let's not kid ourselves about the cause.

Quote
Jihad is a largely Islamic phenomena

Just as WBC and their ilk are a Christian phenomenon, and a growing element sadly. Every time I am somewhat tempered in my disdain of religion, religion never ceases to snap me back to my senses.







« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 12:06:58 PM by Flick James » Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 487
Posts: 4645


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #50 on: April 14, 2011, 09:59:13 AM »

Quote
Maybe I should research the First Amendment.  You do know that I'm a lawyer, right?
 

Due to my sad lack in the area of interpersonal savvy, believe it or not I don't.

I appreciate the correction. I understand what you're saying from a lawyers standpoint, and I fully accept that you are more qualified than I. However, are non-lawyers not able to interpret the Consititution at least on a conceptual basis? I have a hard time believing that Thomas Jefferson or John Adams or Thomas Paine would support such suppport. But I'll refrain from legal interpretation from henceforward.
 
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
lester1/2jr
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 681
Posts: 7824



WWW
« Reply #51 on: April 14, 2011, 11:34:39 AM »

Quote
again, you say I'm out of the line of fire.  I'm not.  There have been two foiled attacks within an hour of me, and Fort Hood isn't that far off.


I guess. I guess it doesn't really make sense to rate terrorist attacks but if we did 9/11 would probaly be a relatively prominent one.

At any rate that was hardly the whole point of my post. The Ft hood shooter was not trying to stop us from the right to a speedy trial or the presumtion of innocence or even the right of women to vote. He was opposed to our wars and freaked out on the information that he was being sent ot assist in one.

Quote
and they had been promised as far back as 1912 in the Balfour Declaration the right to return to their homeland and establish a nation state there.


It was 1917 and does "Lord Balfour" sound like an arab name to you? Do you remember people in the Bible saying "cheerio!".  The PEOPLE of the region, it had again, been MAJORITY ARAB for the 18 CENTURIES prior to zionism, did not extend any declaration!!

If I told Rev Powell, hey you really lke Texas, you may have Indianasmiths house, is that justification for him coming to your house and driving you out (metaphors are not my favorite form of argumentation but you get the point)?

The various colonial declarations from the Ottomans or the Brits are not worth the paper they were written on.

Quote
Historically speaking, there has NEVER been an Arabic Muslim state of Palestine,etc


have you ever heard of the Crusades? This is the holy land we are talking about here. it wasn't a nomadic pasture. here is a good is probably biased toward the arab side history of the region and a unbiased book I would reccomend to anyone.

The bottom line is this: Israel was created by driving out the people who lived there before. Now, They said we are going to live among the people and impart our western knowledge and blah blah,


read Theadore Herzl's letter 1899 letter to the turks


Quote
...
You see another difficulty, Excellency, in the existence of the non-Jewish population in Palestine. But who would think of sending them away? It is their well-being, their individual wealth which we will increase by bringing in our own. Do you think that an Arab who owns land or a house in Palestine worth three or four thousand francs will be very angry to see the price of his land rise in a short time, to see it rise five and ten times in value perhaps in a few months? Moreover, that will necessarily happen with the arrival of the Jews. That is what the indigenous population must realize, that they will gain excellent brothers as the Sultan will gain faithful and good subjects who will make this province flourish this province which is their historic homeland.


So it didn't work out. thats fine, but lets not sugar coat things.

Israel was created the way the US was created. Unfortunately for them the demographics are against them where they favored the European settlers.

good luck to them, but If they don't lke their neighborhood they should leave, that's what our ancestors all did.
 

Quote
We gave Israel



who are we to give anyone something????  Did the UN give us America??

Quote
There are Indian Reservations that are bigger than the entire state of Israel!


The israelis aren't the Indians, they are the pilgrims. The palestinians are the Indians.

Quote
A group of brutally theocratic dictatorships that are against virtually every principle that Western Civilization is built on, or a progressive, Democratic state that has produced more Nobel Prize winners per capita than any nation on earth?


ever heard of Hosni Mubarak? The Saudi royal familiy? you know the ones who practice Wahabi islam, the religion of choice of terroist everywhere?

We DO support those regimes BECAUSE of peace deals with Israel. literally We had a deal with egypt at Camp David for the specific reason of peace with Israel.


Quote
Should we throw a faithful ally and loyal friend under the bus for the sake of people who hate us, and will continue to hate us even if we abandon Israel to their not-so-tender mercies tomorrow?


faithfull ally eh?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard


Quote
Jonathan Jay Pollard (born August 7, 1954 in Galveston, Texas) is a former civilian intelligence analyst who was convicted of spying for Israel. He received a life sentence in 1987.

Israel granted Pollard citizenship in 1995, while publicly denying, until 1998, that he was an Israeli spy.[1] Israeli activist groups, as well as high-profile Israeli politicians, have lobbied for his release.[2] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has voiced particularly strong support for Pollard, visiting the convicted spy in prison in 2002.[3][4]

Pollard's case was later linked to that of Ben-Ami Kadish, another U.S. national who pleaded guilty to charges of passing classified information to Israel in the same period.[5][6]



"Their current prime minster has voiced particularly strong support"


 Israel gets alot from being allies with us and we get nothing in return but their enemies becoming ours.



Quote
If America is serious about our founding principles of democracy, equality, and freedom, we have a moral duty to stand up for the only nation in the Middle East that shares those principles.



You could have said the same thing about Apartheid era South Africa or any colonial outpost anywhere ever. They have western notions of things becaus they are western poeple some were born in Europe or the uS some arrived a generation or so back.


Quote
And your dreary insistence on showing pictures of lovely, cutely dressed young Muslim women is frankly boring.


Well I'm sorry to intrude reality upon your cartoonish version of the middle east but it's  ridiculous. Is all of America like Winter's Bone?  If so I'd say we were do for an invasion and occupation from a more culturally elevated culture right away.( Not that I am comparing rural peoples to the taliban )

Quote
I can show you plenty of photos of sweetly dressed young frauleins from Germany in the 1930's, but that does not prove that Nazi Germany was a peaceful, benevolent state.


right. it was a modern normal state with an oppresive government.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 11:43:26 AM by lester1/2jr » Logged

Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1823
Posts: 14742


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« Reply #52 on: April 14, 2011, 02:03:23 PM »

Quote
Maybe I should research the First Amendment.  You do know that I'm a lawyer, right?
 

Due to my sad lack in the area of interpersonal savvy, believe it or not I don't.

I appreciate the correction. I understand what you're saying from a lawyers standpoint, and I fully accept that you are more qualified than I. However, are non-lawyers not able to interpret the Consititution at least on a conceptual basis? I have a hard time believing that Thomas Jefferson or John Adams or Thomas Paine would support such suppport. But I'll refrain from legal interpretation from henceforward.
 

Hey, no problem.  Laypeople could study up on the Constitution, but they don't.  It's very complex and time-consuming.  Laypeople are certainly entitled to their opinion on how the Constitution should be interpreted; I think that's a good thing.  But too often they say "the Constitution means X" and they're wrong.  There is no "correct" way to interpret the Constitution; really, every single Justice who's ever sat on the Supreme Court has had their own method of interpretation.  The only thing about Constitutional interpretation you can say with some degree of certainty is what the last precedent says, and the Court could always decide to change or modify that tomorrow.

1st Amendment tidbit: the reason the first Amendment was originally adopted was so the federal government couldn't establish a religion, because founding a state religion was thought to be the sovereign right of the individual states.  Just because none of them actually adopted a state religion didn't mean they didn't want to reserve the right to do so, or to recognize the right of newly admitted states to have a state religion!  If Utah had been admitted before the 14th Amendment, it might have been the only state to adopt a state religion. 
Logged

"The best parts are watching Sly go through the full range of emotions: deadpan, deadpan with raised eyebrow, deadpan with quivering lip. There's also a great sequence where Sly drives his VW Beetle down the interstate for about 20 minutes, staring dramatically through the windshield.."-Joe Bob on A MAN CALLED RAMBO
Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1823
Posts: 14742


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« Reply #53 on: April 14, 2011, 02:05:40 PM »


If I told Rev Powell, hey you really lke Texas, you may have Indianasmiths house, is that justification for him coming to your house and driving you out

Yes, of course.  Send my the address.  Indy, please leave keys under the mat.
Logged

"The best parts are watching Sly go through the full range of emotions: deadpan, deadpan with raised eyebrow, deadpan with quivering lip. There's also a great sequence where Sly drives his VW Beetle down the interstate for about 20 minutes, staring dramatically through the windshield.."-Joe Bob on A MAN CALLED RAMBO
lester1/2jr
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 681
Posts: 7824



WWW
« Reply #54 on: April 14, 2011, 02:07:05 PM »

Okay, I guess Israel does have a right to exist then.
Logged

Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 487
Posts: 4645


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #55 on: April 14, 2011, 02:39:49 PM »

Okay, I guess Israel does have a right to exist then.

Of course Israel has a right to exist. My problem is with the U.S. obssessive lavishing of such preferential support the like that no other nation has ever seen from us. The scriptural motivations always seem to smack me in the face, and adds to my disdain. Mainstream America has been conditioned to see Israel support as necessary and just and right. The justifications used don't mention Biblical motivations, because saying so would run the risk of losing some of that mainstream acceptance.

What I don't get, from a critical thinking aspect, is how supporters of foreign intervention seem to fail to recognize how intervention nearly always attracts aggression. This is mainly because they seem incapable of reversing the scenario, an important part of the critical thought process.

Let's go theoretical for a moment. Let's say that the U.S. was at war with Canada (stop your snickering, just roll with it for a moment). Let's say that China decided they are going to help out Canada, for whatever reason, not by being a direct ally, but by providing aid in the form of supplies and light arms. They're not attacking the U.S. They're just lending support because they like the cut of Canada's jib for whatever reason. Would the U.S. be justified in attacking the Chinese ships bringing in these supplies? In doing so, they will certainly pull China into the war.

This is a scenario, nothing more. However, the idea behind it is, if the U.S. seeks to provide support to another country who is at war with a third country, why is it so difficult to grasp that this would attract aggression from that country. It's a very basic premise and one that interventionists love to ignore, or rationalize away, usually through propaganda, by demonizing the country or people as the real aggressors, and to avoid U.S. accountability. This has nothing to do with any barbaric nature of middle east countries that they may or may not possess.

I have no doubt that Indy truly believes that Islam is the diametric enemy of Christianity. Historically, they are, and vice versa. But, understandably, since the idea is that Christianity is the true faith and Islam is not means that Christians are right and just and civilized and Muslims are barbaric, ruthless savages. Centuries ago, when the Muslims were more advanced and educated than Europeans, they thought Europeans were savages. What's going on today is no less than an extension of the Crusades.

The biggest part of it that bothers me is that the spirit of our early nation was to embrace the New World and throw off the shackles of the Old World, yet here we are, pulled into millenia-old rivalries in the 21st Century. I will NEVER embrace the importance of being involved in it. I feel we as a nation should be better than that. I've been called idealistic and unrealistic about this before. I don't care. It doesn't bother me.
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Umaril The Unfeathered
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 142
Posts: 1833


Pelinal na vasha, racuvar! Sa yando tyavoy nagaia!


WWW
« Reply #56 on: April 14, 2011, 03:50:25 PM »

Let's go theoretical for a moment. Let's say that the U.S. was at war with Canada (stop your snickering, just roll with it for a moment). Let's say that China decided they are going to help out Canada, for whatever reason, not by being a direct ally, but by providing aid in the form of supplies and light arms. They're not attacking the U.S. They're just lending support because they like the cut of Canada's jib for whatever reason. Would the U.S. be justified in attacking the Chinese ships bringing in these supplies? In doing so, they will certainly pull China into the war.

The lending of support you theorize here reminds me of the Lend-Lease Act during WW2.  Without actual troops or direct action, the U.S. lent arms, ammo and various what-not to Britian to help them fight the Luftwaffe.

Another scenario that often gets buried in the sands of history is the Russian invasion of Finland (Suomussalmi) shortly before or after WW2 started, I forget at the moment.  German troops and equipment were there in the role of "volunteer" troops to assist in the repel of Russian forces. 

It's believed that the phrase "volunteer" was used to avert the accusation of Germany violating the Non-Aggression Pact with the Soviet Union.

And lastly, our good old Red friends and their supply of Soviet weapons and equipment
to most of the Third World.

It's easy to see how a nation that arms and supplies another w\o direct intervention can be percieved as an enemy of the country that those arms and supplies are being used to attack.  It makes for some interesting situations.

Logged

Tam-Riel na nou Sancremath.
Dawn's Beauty is our shining home.

An varlais, nou bala, an kynd, nou latta.
The stars are our power, the sky is our light.

Malatu na nou karan.
Truth is our armor.

Malatu na bala
Truth is power.

Heca, Pellani! Agabaiyane Ehlnadaya!
Be gone, outsiders! I do not fear your mortal gods!

Auri-El na nou ata, ye A, Umaril, an Aran!
Aure-El is our father, and I, Umaril, the king!
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 1427
Posts: 8394


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #57 on: April 14, 2011, 07:45:07 PM »

Islam is not just the enemy of Christianity.  If that were all, we Christians would manage to fend for ourselves, as we always have against other religions and philosophies.

Radical Islam, Islamofascism, Jihadism, call it what you will, is the enemy of CIVILIZATION.  Of everything good and positive that man has built out of our savage past across the last two thousand years.  I mean, I wouldn't describe Holland, Denmark, or even England as bastions of Christianity in the last 50 years or so.  But Muslim immigrants are doing their best to replace those governments with Sharia law and the caliphate too. 

Let me put it this way, Flick.  If you or I were captured by Jihadists tomorrow, they would kill both of us.  Regardless of our faith, our political convictions, or our good looks.  We would die because we were Americans and Westerners.

Lester, you are a good friend and sparring partner.  But you are so wrong philosophers weep at the sound of your voice.
Logged

"Carpe diem!" - Seize the day!  "Carpe per diem!" - Seize the daily living allowance! "Carpe carp!" - Seize the fish!
"Carpe Ngo Diem!" - Seize the South Vietnamese Dictator!
lester1/2jr
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 681
Posts: 7824



WWW
« Reply #58 on: April 15, 2011, 09:15:03 AM »

indiana- as a teacher you above all should know: you have to SHOW your work. Tell me where and how I'm wrong or you haven't said anything.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2011, 09:20:02 AM by lester1/2jr » Logged

Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 487
Posts: 4645


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #59 on: April 15, 2011, 09:30:46 AM »

Quote
Let me put it this way, Flick.  If you or I were captured by Jihadists tomorrow, they would kill both of us.  Regardless of our faith, our political convictions, or our good looks.  We would die because we were Americans and Westerners.

I'm not saying they wouldn't. Look, I'm not ignorant. I've been to the middle east, I am familiar with the culture. That doesn't change my stance. Intervention attracts aggression. It's one of the simplest concepts there is. It doesn't matter if America coaxed Japan into an attack out of meanness or if they were responding to a Japanese invasion of China. The fact is, we got involved, and they responded. Whether intervention is justified or not can be argued ad nauseum, but that doesn't change my stance that we are far too interventionist a nation. Our government does not take accountability. The justifications they use are filled with holes and lies and propaganda. You can call me un-patriotic for that stance if you like, but I will say that you are gullible if you honestly believe that our government is honest and straight-shooting.

You are a Christian. That doesn't make you an expert on Islam. I'm not claiming that I am. You haven't demonstrated any understanding of Islam outside of the typical propaganda. You say let's encourage the anti-Jihadist movement, yet you clearly having a seething hatred of all of Islam. All you know how to say is that they are the enemy of all civilization and that they are barbaric savages. When I hear those things they smack of the kind of thing that a nation at war says about their enemy.

Indy, maybe you do know everything about Islam. Maybe you know lots of Muslims and are so steeped in the Quran and Muslim culture that you know what makes them tick. Forgive me if I doubt it because the vast majority of you comments reek of garden variety fearmongering.

I happen to believe that our great Western civilization is only great if it does not allow itself to stoop. We are stooping. We were once isolationist. Has the world change since then? Yes. I'm not naive. However, the U.S. has become a nation that cannot keep itself out of conflict and doesn't seek to be self-reliant. This attracts aggression and I have a problem with that. We have stooped and now bow to the rest of the world's problems. This attracts blowback from cultures that don't respect Western civilization. I have a problem with that. What's more, I don't compromise on those principles, for you or for anybody.

But I still like you.

I think this excerpt from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged sums up my feelings quite a bit:

“If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down on his shoulders—what would you tell him to do?” " To Shrug."

It's time for the U.S. to shrug.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2011, 12:26:32 PM by Flick James » Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  POLITICAL THREAD (PF) ENTER AT YOUR RISK « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.